Hold Congress Accountable

Knowledge is power. It makes sure people understand what is happening to their country, and how they can make a difference. FreedomWorks University will give you the tools to understand economics, the workings of government, the history of the American legal system, and the most important debates facing our nation today. Enroll in FreedomWorks University today!

Search FreedomWorks

Resources

Blog

Republican Study Committee Offers Obamacare Alternative

Contrary to the popular myth, Republicans have offered several alternatives to Obamacare, all of which were rejected out of hand by Obama and his cronies - while all the time they were saying they'd listen to any alternatives the Republicans had to offer.

Phil Roe (R-TN), is working inside Congress to defund, repeal, and most importantly, replace Obamacare. In an interview Friday, he detailed his vision for getting rid of Obamacare (posted earlier), and he also discussed his replacement strategy. Roe, the Co-Chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus in the House, has co-authored a bill for the Republican Study Committee that would truly repeal and replace Obamacare. He was tasked with creating a bill that was revenue neutral, would lower health care costs, relied on free market principles, and didn't raise taxes. The bill has seven main objectives:

Fully repeals President Obama's health care law, eliminating billions in taxes and thousands of pages of unworkable regulations and mandates that are driving up health care costs.

Spurs competition to lower health care costs by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines and enabling small businesses to pool together and get the same buying power as large corporations.

Reforms medical malpractice laws in a common sense way that limits trial lawyer fees and non-economic damages while maintaining strong protections for patients.

Provides tax reform that allows families and individuals to deduct health care costs, just like companies, leveling the playing field and providing all Americans with a standard deduction for health insurance.

Expands access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), increasing the amount of pre-tax dollars individuals can deposit into portable savings accounts to be used for health care expenses.

In the interview on Friday, Dr. Roe said that he fully expects the bill to be altered and amended, and described it as a starting point. In fact, he said he welcomes both Republican and Democrat ideas. His objective is to respond to the manifest desire of a majority of Americans to replace Obamacare with something that works, that won't need to be delayed and will lower costs. Roe said that some of these ideas were implemented at the state level back home, and reduced health care costs within a year of being passed. In particular, he cited tort reform as having an almost immediate effect.

Roe also believes that two aspects of this bill will create free market competitive forces that will drive costs down:

1. Expansion of tax-deductible Health Savings Accounts, which were gutted in the labrynthine Obamacare statute.

Creates a standard deduction for health insurance (SDHI)—an above-the-line tax deduction applied to both income and payroll taxes of $7,500 for individuals or $20,000 for a family—available to all Americans with qualifying health insurance. The SDHI can be applied to existing, employer-sponsored insurance or to the purchase of insurance on the individual or small group market. The SDHI will give families flexibility to pick coverage that best fits their needs and ensure that the tax benefit for insurance doesn’t go away if you lose or change jobs. The SDHI is intended to be revenue-neutral and is funded through the elimination of the tax exclusion for employer-paid health insurance and the self-employed health deduction. No change is made to employers’ ability to deduct payments for employees’ health benefits as a business expense. The SDHI will increase annually by CPI-U.

According to Dr. Roe, the SDHI could have a significant impact on costs. "The SDHI eliminates the current incentive to choose increasingly expensive plans by providing the full value of the deduction regardless of how expensive the plan is. For example, a family with a $15,000 plan would receive an additional $5,000 tax deduction. Based upon Kaiser Family Foundation data, the vast majority of Americans will receive a tax cut under this plan." Furthermore, there would be significant incentives to pool together in groups to buy plans, which would work towards reducing and ultimately eliminating plans tied to employment, increasing portability and reducing lapses in coverage. This would be combined with the expanded Health Savings Accounts, which would allow consumers to use their own money to buy their own treatments on the free market. The natural tendency to shop around - or as Dr. Roe puts it, the motivation to "pull across 6 lanes of traffic on the freeway to get to a sale" - would have a downward effect on prices. Another aspect of this bill would enhance this effect - making Medicare claims and payment data publicly available so that patients and taxpayers alike can better understand what they are being charged.

Roe admits that this bill is not perfect, but it reflects the desire of the RSC - and a majority of Americans - to return to a market based approach that does not intrude on the private relationship between patient and doctor.

Given the overwhelming numbers of Americans who want Obamacare repealed, the thousands of jobs being lost because of these onerous regulations, and the reelection prospects of a few key Democrats in 2014, Roe is optimistic that something can be worked out to finally repeal and replace Obamacare. Time will tell.

@torqueobama I think you're a bit confused on that one. The GOP is saying that the government shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to fund a person's decision to kill their baby. Right now, the government is interfering but under this proposal, the government would be letting people make their own choices. If they cannot afford an abortion (which costs a few hundred dollars......far less than even the cheapest deductibles on Obamacare plans) then maybe they should think a little harder before engaging in behavior that would put them in the position to be considering that option. I only wish that an abortion was more expensive when I made the worst decision of my life 6 yrs ago and had one.....I bet I would've been more responsible in the first place instead of living with an unbelievable amount of guilt and regret that followed the abortion.

12/03/2013

This is a great bill, and it will get absolutely no traction because it singles out abortion. The GOP is doomed as long as it believes the government has to interfere with a persons social decisions.

my co-worker's step-aunt makes $84 every hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for five months but last month her inℂOMe was $13091 just working on the laptop for a few hours. my link JOBS70.ℂOM

More Americans paid ObamaCare's individual mandate tax for 2014 than previously estimated, according to a new report from the Internal Revenue Service's National Taxpayer Advocate. In January, the Treasury Department projected that up to 6 million households would be subject to the tax because they did not purchase a government-approved health insurance plan.

A new analysis finds that the health insurance plans offered on ObamaCare exchanges offer a choice of 34 percent fewer health care providers, on average, than plans offered on the private market. The report specifies that:

America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade association that lobbies on behalf of insurance companies in Washington and in state legislatures, announced on Wednesday that Marilyn Tavenner, the former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), will serve as its president and chief operating officer. Tavenner oversaw the disastrous implementation of ObamaCare during her tenure, which, some suspect, ultimately led in her resignation from CMS in January.

The Supreme Court has now largely upheld ObamaCare, with a carve-out from the contraceptive mandate for closely held companies, the first three times the law has been challenged in the Court. Because of this, it is difficult to have much faith that the Court will ever overturn the law based on constitutional concerns. However, there is still another case working its way through the DC Circuit, Sissel v. HHS, challenging ObamaCare based on the Origination Clause.

Health insurance companies are signaling huge health insurance premium increases ahead of the 2016 open enrollment period. This is due to the droves of older and sicker consumers who signed up for coverage on the ObamaCare Exchanges, according to a report from The New York Times. Requests submitted by insurance are approved by state regulators, such as state insurance commissioners, but the proposed rates reflect a higher utilization of healthcare than expected.

The Supreme Court has taken an active role in redefining, rather than simply interpreting, our country’s laws. Two clear examples of this can be seen in the two ObamaCare opinions written by Chief Justice Roberts, NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell. Whether it is calling a penalty a tax, or saying an exchange established by Kathleen Sebelius was established by the states, the Supreme Court is playing an active role in changing legislation.

The newly handed-down Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act has garnered a great deal of debate. The 6-3 vote in favor of the administration does nothing to fix the unworkable flaws that remain and continue to largely define Obamacare. No matter the lens used to view the ACA, the prognosis is bad.

Some words apparently have no meaning, even when written in plain English, according to a majority of Supreme Court justices. Today the Court reached its long awaited decision in King v. Burwell. The Court ruled 6-3 for Burwell, holding that the federal subsidies can continue to flow to states that have not established an exchange.

The King v. Burwell lawsuit has generated a lot of interest, and for good reason. It’s an important case that has broad implications for the future of ObamaCare. But the issue at hand is a complex one, and this has led - both willfully and accidentally - to a lot of bad or misleading reporting. Let’s clear things up, shall we? Here are the top five misconceptions about King v. Burwell.